E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
DES MOINES, IA -- On the campaign trail and on the debate stage, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney makes one point abundantly clear: The middle class has been hit hard in this economy, and he wants to help if he becomes president.
Romney often cites his tax plan as a way he intends to aid the middle class specifically.
"If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class," Romney explained at a debate on Oct. 11. "I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net; they're taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break. And that is why I focused my tax cut right there."
But liberal-leaning economists argue that the people who get the biggest break under Romney's plan aren't the middle class -- but rather the wealthy.
"Most of the benefits of his tax plan clearly go to upper income people, there's no doubt about that," said Dean Baker, an economist and the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
And this week during a speech in Kansas, President Obama took direct aim at tax plans like Romney's, which use as their starting point the preservation of the so-called Bush tax cuts, which disproportionately reduces taxes for the wealthy.
"Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us?" Obama asked rhetorically. "The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security."
But in an interview with NBC News, Romney's policy director, Lanhee Chen, was quick to defend Romney's tax plan against criticisms that it benefits the wealthy more than the middle class. Chen argued that holding marginal rates low across the board is vital to spurring more growth.
"We are offering a tax plan that delivers clear tax savings to the middle class, and the idea of holding down marginal rates for everybody is important for economic growth, and economic growth is ultimately what will help propel this economy and create jobs."
A lack of specifics
While Romney's other policy plans -- for issues like job creation, dealing with China, and rebuilding America's military might -- offer plenty of specifics and fairly detailed timelines for action, Romney's tax reform plan is uncharacteristically vague.
The tax policy for individuals and families, as laid out in the Romney's "Believe in America" jobs and economic growth plan, has four major tenets: 1) maintain marginal rates at current levels (largely by making the Bush tax cuts permanent); 2) reduce or eliminate taxes on savings and investment; 3) eliminate the estate tax permanently, and 4) pursue a "flatter, fairer, simpler" tax structure in the future.
Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, has studied Romney's tax plan as it has been laid out. He says without more specificity, it's impossible to properly compare Romney's vision for tax reform to that of his GOP rivals.
"[The Romney plan is] unlike the Perry plan and the Cain plan, where we were able to actually run the numbers.' Gleckman told NBC in an interview. "Those plans were pretty specific, and we were able to get pretty specific in our analysis of them. You can't do that with the Romney plan. He just isn't specific enough. So you can really only talk in generalities. You can't really talk in specifics. There's no way to say 'Perry would cut taxes by X and Romney would cut taxes by Y.' We just don't know that."
Gleckman took the most exception to Romney's pledge to implement a flatter tax structure in the future.
"It is the easiest thing in the world for politicians to say: I want simpler, flatter, fairer, but that means nothing," Gleckman said. "He has come up with basically platitudes. He's said I want to have tax reform some day, but I won't tell you what my tax reform is going to look like."
No tax on savings
Where Romney has offered specifics about changing how middle income Americans pay their taxes, it is in his plan to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest for Americans making less than $200,000 per year.
In response to a question from NBC News in South Carolina in October, Romney explained this plank of his tax platform:
"A first step I want to make sure that middle-income Americans can save their money tax free, and my guess is you're going to find that middle-income families find that they can save their money tax fee with no tax on interest, dividends, and capital gains, they'll be inclined to do more savings," he said. "The benefit that accrues to the nation, that they're providing more capital to the markets and by them being able to save themselves those benefits will accrue dividends and help create additional jobs," Romney said.
Chen, Romney's policy director, buttresses that point, suggesting Romney's plan would tilt American habits more towards savings.
"We currently have a system of taxation that doesn't strongly encourage savings and investment in the middle class. So, really, the goal of this tax reform is not just to keep marginal tax rates low, so people can take home more of what they earn, but also to insure that there are proper incentives in place to build the next generation of savers and investors," Chen said. "Anybody who's got any money in the bank at all is going to benefit from this."
The Tax Policy Center estimates that a change in the law eliminating taxation on capital gains and dividends would indeed keep more money in the pockets of middle-income Americans. But not much more. A taxpayer making the median income in the United States -- just more than $50,000 per year -- would see roughly $278 in tax savings. Meanwhile, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 would see a more robust $843 dollars in savings, on average.
Some retired Americans, or people living largely off of savings or investment dividends, might see more of a boost, given the structure of their income.
But Gleckman is dubious that Romney's approach would have the desired effect of creating a culture of more savings.
"Is this going to be sufficient to encourage people to invest? Probably not. Right now, you know, middle-income people, mostly what they're worried about is keeping their job and paying their mortgage," Gleckman said. "In that environment, telling them they're going to get a bigger tax break when they buy a stock and then sell the stock... I don't think they really care very much."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research's Baker agrees.
"It doesn't look to me like it really has much impact. The one thing that would have a very, very limited impact for middle-class people is he'd get rid of the capital gains for people making under $200,000. But those people pay almost no capital gains," Baker said. "Most middle-class people, if they have capital gains, it's in their retirement account, and that is taxed as ordinary income."
On that point, Chen sees Romney's plan as a possible new model for retirement savings.
"I kind of see this as another way to help folks save for retirement, that doesn't have all the strings attached that the current IRA and 401k system does," he said. "It could be an option for folks who want to save to buy a home, for major purchases in their lives, or for folks who just want to be able to save tax free for, for whatever future events they may have in their lives."
Payroll tax extension
The relatively modest dollar amounts listed above are each less than the projected savings that a middle-class family would get from extending the payroll tax cut -- a measure currently hotly contested on Capitol Hill. Romney was roundly criticized by Democrats for originally calling the cut a "temporary little Band-Aid." But just this week, he changed his rhetoric and said definitively he would support an extension of the tax cut.
"I would like to see the payroll tax cut extended, because I know that working families are really feeling the pinch right now -- middle-class Americans are having a hard time," Romney said on conservative Michael Medved's radio show.
Romney's campaign also pushed back against the notion that the candidate was ever actually against the payroll tax cut extension. A campaign spokesperson explained that the ex-governor's belief was that a temporary extension of the cut was a good idea, but not, on its own, a strong enough reform.
"Gov. Romney has never met a tax cut he didn't like," campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. "He has made it clear that he does not believe that by itself the payroll tax cut will create the type of permanent long term change that is needed to turn the economy around,"
Looking at the field
But if tax plans are purely comparative, Romney can find solace in a simulation run by Bloomberg BusinessWeek in conjunction with the Tax Institute, which found Romney's plan benefited a hypothetical middle-class families more than did the plans for Perry, Cain, Jon Huntsman, or President Obama.
The two economists say they expect Romney to be pressed for more specifics as the primaries move forward, and as his personal income tax plan is compared to those of his rivals, including the surging Newt Gingrich.
"What he's talked about, what he's been specific about, is not tax reform," said Gleckman "It's basically tinkering around the edges of the tax law that Barack Obama extended last year." Romney has cited the controversial Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction commission as a "good starting point" for a more robust conversation about tax reform. But will he be pushed to start that conversation this primary season? Or could it be held for a time when Romney might get the chance to take on President Obama directly?
"At that point he may well come up with something that's more detailed. I'd be surprised in fact if he doesn't," said Baker. "I think he's got a decent chance of winning, but there's no doubt about it -- you don't unseat an incumbent president easily. This might be a starting point, but I'm sure he'll have more things to add to it."
A senior Romney adviser says a more robust tax reform policy is "actively" under development at campaign headquarters in Boston even now. But when it might be revealed? The adviser wouldn't say.
Leave a Comment:
When the vast major of middle class Americans are living pay check to pay check, just how do you think letting them save money tax free is going to make any difference?? What part of there's NO MONEY at the end of the month to save, do you not understand Mr. Romney???
This country will be so much better off with a diffrent President. I'm encouraged by the listening to the number of youg people who realize the "wealth redistribution" promotion that got Obama elected is a failed policy that olny expands poverty further. Look at all the people wasting time (and money) in these OWS camps. Our President as done these people a great dis-service by promoting the idea that it's someone elese is repsonsible for thier lot in life.
This republican show sure is goofy. If one word could define republicans, what would you use? Me? Unhonorable. Honor simply does not reside in them anymore. Hillarious. Also sad.
Republicans---Security The only group in Washington standing between my wealth and the next liberal politician...
UAW: unless you are in the to 5% of wealth holders/earners, your day is coming. As the Republican Senators recently pointed out, they are not interested in preserving low tax rates for the true "middle" class.
The only thing worse than having the GOP in charge of the House is it controlling the House and the Senate. The only thing worse than that would be for it to contol the Executive branch as well. The only thing that could be worse than that would be for Newt Gingrich to be the GOP head in the Whitehouse.
dirp101
Well I have to agree with you here, there is only one man running that is remotely qualified, Ron Paul.
Ron Paul seems good on reducing taxes but let's think about what he would cut out, like theFDA or weaking ing the EPA or eleminating the Dept of education, so how would he give aid to the states with no Dept to monitor it. Or how about his statement that if you don't have health insurance than you're out of luck. Eliminating food inspections or dismantling the FDA would erode product saftey. If he did that would you ever buy any more processed food, or take another drug if those companies weren't stronly regulated?
People like you take for granted that all these protections are there. Imagine if they were taken away?
Neither he or the rest of the republicans get it. And, I don't see that changing anytime soon. This man is not the better choice in 2012. His business experience resulted in the loss of thousands of American jobs. The only people who got wealthy when he was in business were his business partners. Further, his state ranked 47th in job creation by the time in left the governor's office in MA. Why would anyone think he would do a better job as President than Obama?
Obama has struggled because the republicans have decided that destroying him is far more important than fixing the problems in this country. Too bad for us.
I know how to fix America. My plan will help get Americans back to work, balance our budget, lower the debt, AND fix our overall economy. Here it is:
1. Deficit Reduction Package over 12 years:
2. Economic Plan (paid for by a 4% surtax on millionaires).
3. Reform Government.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
P.S. ALL GOP CONTENDERS AND CONGRESSMEN: CUT THE CRAP, COMPROMISE WITH THE DEMOCRATS, STOP USING FILIBUSTERS, AND GET THE DAMN JOB DONE YOU IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE THE REASON WHY OUR GOVERNMENT, NOT YOURS, IS BROKEN, AND YOU WILL PAY IN 2012. OH YES, YOU WILL PAY, you TEAPUBLICAN'T CONSERVATWIT JERKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GOP/TEA PARTY/CONSERVATISM/RIGHT WING EXTINCT 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AMERICA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Romney: You conniving little bastard!!!!!!!! The Bush tax cuts did NOTHING but give us high debt and deficit for years!!! We need to cut those stupid reductions, raise taxes ON THE wealthy, and KEEP estate taxes and capital gains. Yes, we need to reform the tax code and promote savings and growth, but why can't we eliminate the Bush tax cuts so we don't have to cut so much spending??? Admit it, we need higher taxes, and the wealthy are the ones who need to pay cause they own more of America than the rest of us, who make the MAJORITY of the damn work force!!!!! I can't wait till you lose in 2012, and then maybe Obama can actually FIX this nation without having to worry about Teapublican'ts like YOU.
Sincerely,
A liberal Democrat.
P.S. CAN'T WAIT UNTIL YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This suprises me, what you propose sounds a LOT like Ron Paul's plan to restore America.
You a closet Ron Paul Supporter?
Or is it that you are a hard core democrat follower that sees the value in the Restore America plan and wants to usurp it for the Democrats?
OH! wait a minute...
And this....
Me thinks you are gonna be a waitin' as awwwful long time......
Ron Paul 2012, the last HONEST man!
Freshieee
Not bad. I don't agree with all of it, but then, no one is ever going to agree 100% with anyone's plan.
Egilman,
There may be some parallels with Ron Paul's economic plan. But Paul lives in some kind of fantasy world where everyone will do the "right thing" if we just get rid of government. He reminds me of the pigs walking on 2 feet in Orwell's "Animal Farm", chanting "Two feet good! Four feet bad!"
How about 50 million for americans to learn Chinese.
Good luck with that, particularly the elimination of lobbyists. Since the right to petition the government is a Constitutional right, the chances of that going away as Congress voting to cut their pay and limit their time in office.
Freshlee - That would be a good start. I find it odd when congress can not fix their budget, their salary is not affected. In fact their salary has gone up over the last 10 years. I know mine has not.
dirp10 - I have no issue with petition the government, but when congress can hand out money on to each other because how they voted, that is wrong. And that is what the Speaker of the House a few years ago. His resident should have been moved from Ohio to Leavenworth KS for the rest of his life.
The only similarity to the Paul Ryan plan is the word plan. In content Eg, the two plans are polar opposites. I prefer Freshlee's plan to what the GOP in power is doing.
I probably would not have used such strong language but thank you for telling it like it is. Your post was honest and thoughtful...two traits republicans would know if they slapped them upside the head!
You sound like a maxist - communist party. Look at Europe and now look in the mirror that is your future with your plan.
I'll never forget a story I saw a while ago on MSNBC, where a union auto worker was being interviewed and this gentleman talked about September 11th. He told a story of how the unions in Detroit worked 24/7 making vehicles for the NY Fire Department who were in desperate need of them. So they went to work and built the equipment.
And these vehicles were given free of charge to NYC. Free of charge.
This to me is the essence of what America ought to be. Union workers get it.
And then we have Romney and the essence of what the Republican Party has become:
"When I listen to Mitt Romney these days, he talks about creating jobs. My experience at Dade during those Bain Capital years was that it was strictly an investment, not to create jobs," said Michael Rumbin, a vice president of technology management at Dade during the Bain years whose position was eliminated in 2000.
"No one came from Bain and said, 'How can we hire more people?' " Rumbin said. "It was, 'How do we turn our investment around and make a lot of money?' Which they did."
*******************
And please let's remember part of the reason for the mess we find ourselves in today is because of the wars. Unpaid for wars. And deregulation. And Bush tax cuts. Three things Romney was and continues to be "for".
And he's got Rove doing all the dirty work. Just like GWB.
Republicans have really done a number on America. And Iraq for that matter.
Well, Romney at least got his money. Rove has his. Limbaugh the same. And on and on.
But there are an awful lot of people in ads we've been seeing of late who were hurt by this modern day "capitalist" Mitt Romney. They lost everything.
*********************
NY Times:
“Mitt ran a private equity firm, not a cement company,” said Eric A. Kriss, a former Bain Capital partner. “He was not a businessman in the sense of running a company,” Mr. Kriss said, adding, “He was a great presenter, a great spokesman and a great salesman.”
Mr. Bain took the lead in raising money from his partners and rich friends, including Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the Boston real estate mogul, and Robert K. Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots football team. But he always took Mr. Romney along to help seal the deal.
Nice Story.
That's all it is. As in, it's a fairy tale- never happened.
On the subject of fairy tales, I wish once- just one time- some journalist, somewhere, would do five minutes worth of research and explain to people what the heck is meant by that oft-used term "middle class".
You'll be surprised to know that there is absolutely no basis in economics for the term.
No income level. No definition. Nothing.
Now, what there is, is a school of people who have a working definition- but none of you are going to like it. See, the people these economists define as middle class-college educated professionals- you'd call wealthy.
The people many of you believe are defined as middle class are seen by these economists as working class- blue collar workers earning incomes up to $50,000 a year. Incidentally, if these workers are married and have two children under 17, they pay NO federal income taxes.
It actually does not surprise me that none of you know what the heck you're talking about when you spout about middle class- you are led by an idiot who proclaims that unemployment checks create more jobs than a shovel readyipeline project.
The worst part of that statement? He actually believes that. And, because Obama said it, so do you.
...and because President Obama said it, YOU DON'T (without allowing truth, facts, or history to get in the way of your denial.)
Like it or not, blo-jo in NJ, Obama is America's President; so when you dis him, YOU DIS AMERICA!
Just a fact.
Well well no definition of "Middle CLass"? Ok but then again there is no definition of pornography either yet I recognize it when I see it.
Not as stupid as yo uthink
Gotta call bull@!$%#e, bull@!$%#e!
Where do you think the Media, first the newspapers, then the Mass media got the Nickname
THE FOURTH ESTATE!
What is freedom of speech and freedom of the press for? Why are these rights guaranteed in the Constitution?
Don't you get it? dissin the pres is one of the things that make America GREAT!
Or I guess you are arguing for the gestapo to come arrest anyone that says anything bad about the president's policies?
Are you a NAZI in disguise?
Not at all Eg...
but do YOU know/understand whatsedition is?
Fourth estate bases their contention upon FACTS, not RNC spin and talking points
Big, BIG difference... Don't YOU understand?
Might also want to investigate meaning of libel and slander. My post refered to when these are used.
The Fourth Estate in any form hasn't based anything upon fact since Walter Cronkite retired. In fact he commented on the issue of "opinion pieces" being news often. Also, when Dan "the man" Rather was fired I heard that Walter chuckled and said that Dan and NBC got what they deserved.
Dan Rather proved a lot of things, the liberal fourth estate will do anything they can up to and including fabricating lies to promote their own agenda.
Comment 3.2? I don't see anything in there about libel nor slander?
Are you aware that libel and slander are two of the hardest offenses to prove?
The reason is you have to prove intent to harm. In other words, you have to establish, in evidence that the person or agency that made the statements, made them specifically with intent to harm before the statements were ever actually made!
I do have an education, and I'm a member of westlaw, I can get you a lot of statutory and precedents for proof if you want....
Thanks, but no thanks Eg...I have them too.
Yes they are difficult to "prove" along with sedition and treason, you are correct. But don't you understand what I was saying? Your dissertation actually supports if not proves what I posted. Gee - seems we've found some common ground to agree upon. Imagine that.
BTW:
You do know that Dan is a right-leaning Texas Republican don't you? A GW Bush supporter?
The remainder of your statement is exactly the behavior I referenced when discussing sedition, libel, etc. If your eyes are open, you have seen a lot of that occurring by those anti-Obama entities [Not the "liberal fourth estate" but the wingnuts and teanut Republicans] I was bringing to task. Some of the e-mail forwards and facebook links I personally have received fit the description to a tee. I know YOU are aware of it too, so come on; confession is good for the soul while denial of facts indicates ignorance IMO.
" . . . you are led by an idiot who proclaims that unemployment checks create more jobs than a shovel readyipeline project. . . ."
no joe, no bo: I'd appreciate it if you could produce the proof to back up this statement, please. Are you not aware that each time our president has introduced a plan to put people to work improving our infrastructure, etc., the republicans have put a stop to it? After all, as they have stated on the record, it's more important to get that BLACK guy out of their WHITE house than to do anything to help the millions of hurting folks out here, right?
Diane, Freshieee, and Pat,
Thank your for your posts. It is all about restoring the middle class in this country. It is on the endangered species list.
Freshieee, :Your numbers and the policies they represent make sense to me. But there is no political will in Congress these days. The Republicans have a visceral hatred of our president which I don't understand. They would rather sink this country on the hope that they will win the White house and control the whole Congress.
i am off to spend a long weekend in D.C. area. I have not visited our Capitol in over 10 years. I will visit all the monuments again and remember the people who gave their lives for our country. We all deserve a better government than we have today.
Romney , Gingrich both can fight for primary voters, but they will lose in the general election. Most of the 99% are not stupid.
The more Mittney and the grinch fight it out, Ron Paul gets stronger.
Freshieee's numbers are almost exact copies of Paul's numbers and the plan he is speaking about was published over a month ago on Ron Paul's website by his campaign.
It's called the Restore America Plan, It's nice to see liberal Democrats think is a pretty good plan also.
Look, egilman. I'm gonna tell you this once, and once only. I HATE Ron Paul. He has some good ideas, like making the Fed Reserve transparent and protecting civil liberties, but other than that he is a total idealistic idiot. America needs the Fed to regulate the dollar, we could keep our military bases worldwide IF we could only find a way to fix our budget in a BALANCED way (including tax increases and entitlement reform), and I am TOTALLY AGAINST destroying the Dept. of Education, turning education back to the states, and firing hundreds of thousands of employees just because some loons in Washington can't get their act together and because some Libertarian nutcase wants to send America back to the days of the early 19th century, you know the days when life expectancy was EXTREMELY low and our government was "small enough to fit in a bathtub." Sorry Ron Paul, but in my opinion you're a Teapublican nutcase.
Signed,
A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (and no, I don't like libertarianism).
Freshieee
I knew this before you posted, he stands for many things you as a die-hard liberal cannot stand for.
He doesn't want to make the FED transparent, he wants to ELIMINATE it!
He doesn't want to make the Debt driven economy work by patching the old clunker up leaving our posterity to figure out how to pay for it, he wants to go back to a wealth creation economy based upon sound money!
He doesn't want to continue the idea that we have a manifest destiny to rule the world by imposing our beliefs on everyone else.
He want's to end the military industrial complex that is spending us into the poorhouse.
And yes he wants to take the government back to the size it should have been all along and end the government sector teat.
Libertarian nutcase? The fact that he aligns himself with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
I wish all our elected officials were nutcases like him...
And as I said, I agree with SOME of what he says. I want to end the military industrial complex. I want to decrease debt, but I want to keep our money's value stable so we can use it help the economy. AND, when the economy improves I say we take out the EXACT amount of money that we injected into it. And I want government to be sustainable, more along the lines of the Clinton era. Let me correct you by saying this: what exactly did Ronald Reagan do in domestic policy that helped us in the long run? Those tax cuts were an artificial patch on an economy that was gonna blow someday and increased our debt substantially. The deregulation also weakened our economy, am I not mistaken? And didn't Jack Kennedy increase the size of government? And what's with the government sector teat? Yes, the government has a limit to what it can do in the economy. But the government needs to have a strong position in the economy to keep it under control. And since when has state-controlled education worked? The states had 200 years to manage education. Let the feds handle education by establishing systems that the states adhere to. Instead of having 50+ state standards, why not have 1 national standard system? Admit it. Ron Paul's ideas aren't very suitable for a country with 310 million people and a $15 trillion economy.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Jack Kennedy actually didn't increase the size of government very much at all, LBJ on the other hand......
So I guess Freshieee that you are saying, since Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, that the Founding Fathers ideas are not suitable also. And, since their ideas resulted in the Constitution, that by extension, it isn't suitable either?
So, this raises another question, is it therefore true that liberals wish to do away with the constitution and supplant it with something more to their liking?
No, why would liberals want to do away with the Constitution? Besides, the Constitution WAS MEANT to be changed to fit modern society. And remember, it's not that the Founding Fathers' ideas are not suitable, it's that they were made in the 18TH Century. In case you didn't know, this is the 21TH Century, where our country is bigger and more powerful, and so we need a bigger and stronger government than we had in late 1700s and early 1800s.
I misspelled your nick in an earlier post, Freshieee. I agree with you as for the other Presidents, all except for Lincoln. Lincoln and the Republican party seperated from a Democratic party that functioned much as the modern Republican party does today. I am an old guard 1860's Lincoln Republican.
I care more about the health of the republic, then modern GOP does today. Your right the Constition is not set in stone, it is a living document intended to change as needed to face the challenges before our country. The only time I vote GOP is in the primaries. Eg, I am not impressed by people who use words but say nothing of value.
Well, we liberals who accept reality know that we have to either get behind the (Republican) future or go the dinosaur route (not appealing, to one who still enjoys sex and evolution!); we have to evaluate it as: Newt or Mitt; OR (some rap/rock star yet to jump on the notion of throwing Obama under a bus!). Unless you right-wingers can come up with a viable alternative to Taylor Swift, I would have to support Newt. At least he has some strange/undefined sense of values, or history, or whatever, besides making all his perfect-toothed children DARN proud to be his progeny. Romney just strikes me as a new-age, right wing Al Gore, willing to please all in the election only to show his true colors (beige) afterwards.
Diane from California,
It's not federal taxes that are killing you, it's state taxes. Gov. Moonbeam has to pay for all those freeloaders/illegals in your state. In California if you fart and it doesn't smell right you get state assistance and counseling, this is just an silly example of the liberal policies that have driven that state to the brink of bankruptcy. You get the general idea tho, people are leaving California in droves because of state taxes and businesses, well lets just say the state is toxic when it comes to being business friendly. Now those people are going to destroy Colorado. So the middle class in California is suffering because of high state taxes, liberal polices not federal taxes. Maybe a few less bong hits might help you to see reality!
California... the land of fruits and nuts!!
If Al Capone were alive today, he'd love modern day politics.
So Romney wants billionaires like Warren Buffet to pay no taxes, while his secretary pays 25%.
That's proof enough that Romney is assaulting the middle class.
Everyone who talks to Romney needs to ask him, what he will cut to get the trillions in cuts he is proposing. Based on the numbers, he could cut Social Security completely and still not have enough to offset the revenue cuts he's proposed. Or Romney could cut Medicare completely and he still would not save enough to offset the revenus cuts he's proposed.
First Read, proud member of the Obama team, with another class warfare screed, relying upon Far Left think tanks.
How does punishing the well off and succesful with confiscatory taxation benefit the working middle class?
It benefits the only real protected "class" in our society-the parasitic public sector.
Typical Republican talk.
Democrats push for increasing the worker tax break from 2% to 3.1% and Republicans say no.
Democrats push for adding a 3.1% tax break (per employee) to businesses and Republicans say no.
Tax cuts for all American workers and tax cuts for businesses being rejected by Republicans.
Romney must think the people are stupid. Has any Republican come up with a tax plan that does not favor the wealthy the most? The Bush tax cuts favored the wealthy and they are still in effect, so where are the jobs?If tax cuts for the wealthy are that great, why do we have so much unemployment?
Classic Mitt Romney, saying contradictory things by talking out of both sides of his mouth. From the left side of his mouth, we hear something sensible about wanting to help the shrinking middle class. Then from the right side, we get nonsensical policy proposals that would do nothing to achieve that goal, but rather just help the wealthy.
If you want another great example, check out his appearance on Morning Joe. Speaking about the economy, he correctly and astutely diagnosed the unemployment problem as being a shortage of demand. Businesses aren't hiring because they don't need to expand because they can meet the current and near future consumer demand with their existing workforce. Then, as a solution, he proposed exactly the same kind of useless supply-side stimulus measures every other Republican is touting that would benefit corporations and the wealthy by reducing their tax burdens, but would do absolutely nothing to address the demand situation and therefore do next to nothing to reduce unemployment.
Mitt's trying hard to pretend to be able to relate to the middle class, but most of us are unconvinced. I believe the conventional metaphor at play here is "a wolf in sheep's clothing".
Nathan,
Ok, if you don't think Mitt can relate to the Middle Class, then what do you think of Obama , not wanting to go ahead with the Canada pipeline into the U.S.? It's suppose to create thousands of jobs immediately.
Obama is playing politics with thousands of JOBS. The environmentalists will get mad if Obama Ok's it even though it's already been cleared as "safe for the environment."
Obama should resign now and leave the "job creation" to people who have already done it.
How many times does it have to be posted that the pipeline will create only a couple hundred temporary jobs, max. Most of the permanent jobs are Canadian union jobs that already exist - no new hiring.
Have you thought about the reason for the pipeline? Why don't they build a refinery closer to the Canadian fields? It's so the oil will be refined at coastal refineries and be readily available to be shipped anywhere in the world. In other words, it's not for us sweetie. We get very little out of this besides the environmental risk. The republican run State of Nebraska understands this, why don't you?
Well put blearyeyed!
Ever been to a mall in Texas. Look at some of the maps they have. To many, the United States consists of Texas and Oklahoma. Everything North of Oklahoma is shown as Canada. Sorry, but it's time for permanent jobs in the rest of the country and not just jobs in Texas.
hey blearyeyed,
Where did you get your facts, from Obama? Read up.
"TransCanada Corporation announced a Project Labor Agreement for a significant portion of U.S. construction of the proposed US$7 billion Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline Project (Keystone XL). The agreement will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct Keystone XL. During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers."
" The Project Labor Agreement is with the Laborers International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Pipeline Contractors Association."
“The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will have a significant impact on the North American economy through the thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs it is creating,” says Russ Girling, TransCanada president and chief executive officer. “This project is entirely paid for
with private sector dollars and is shovel ready.”
at some point you have to believe the facts, not listen to the politicos on it.
Leona,
They do not want to hear facts..... Sadly
To use the dominant beltway term, Obama's "punting" on the Keystone pipeline is indeed an act of political cowardice, in many ways similar to Romney's refusal to take a true stand on any issue. I've long been critical of Obama's compulsion to compromise even when the middle ground makes no sense.
But I must ask, if one views this as a flaw of Obama's presidential character, how could one support Mitt Romney who seems to take this flaw to the extreme? I've said before: Mitt Romney is like the embodiment of everything I don't like about Obama with none of the positives. Romney is what you get if you combine Obama's worst attributes with Ebenezer Scrooge's worst attributes.
But, hey, I'd still take Romney in an instant over Gingrich.
Nathan,
Obama already proved ( he had 3+ years) he can't handle the leadership of a great nation like ours.
He needs to go back to a radical liberal college where he can espouse values similar to those of Van Jones, Bill Ayers, the New Black Panthers and Rev.Wright.
We need American free capitalist outlooks and perspectives for JOBS JOBS JOBS.
ABO.
Under any of these GOP clowns, we as the people would be screwed.
Call your congressmen and tell him to "raise someone elses taxes"----Barack Obama
The GOP are all phoney baloney! If the Dems are so stupid to go along with them then they need to go too! The Dems. better start talking a stronger talk so they won't be classed with them. Sometimes it is hard to tell one from the other. The President needs to stress this point.
You want the best example of what corporations are likely to do with their money? We've already had a very good example, and it was during good times. Back in '05, Bush passed a tax amnesty for overseas profits. What did business do with the money? Did they expand in the US, hire new workers? No! Studies have shown that the vast majority used the "new found" money for increased executive compensation and stock dividends. Studies have also shown that if the individuals were taxed at a higher rate on this executive compensation and dividends, they would instead have the corps. keep and re-invest the money.
Wow that's just insane. A corporation took it's new found windfall and gave shareholders dividends.... We would be much better off if Barack took that money and re-invested it for us in Solyent Green. I'm freaking tired of having to make all the decsions about what to do with my divdend checks I want Barack Obama to appoint a czar that will decide that for me.......
You miss the point. Corporations and their executives are looking out for themselves. There is no patriotism at play. The point is that cutting taxes does not equate to reinvestment. Left to their own choices executives have shown they will first pay themselves outsized compensation and dividends. Government may be able to encourage reinvestment by lowering the corp. rate, but raising the individual and cap gains rates. We have to get away from the fairly tale notion that if we just treat businesses better, they will do good. They only do what benefits society as an indirect result of what benefits them. Tax policy is a crude, blunt tool for accomplishing this. It is better seen as only a tool for raising revenue, and nothing more.
Lowering the corp. tax is fine if it would bring jobs back to the american people, but big corp/exec. wouldn't even concider that. Besides paying themselves the big bucks, corp/exec would take the rest of the $$$'s and invest it alright. They will invest it in a third world country were they can pay 1/10th the wage.
Romney is the one who came out and flatly AGREED with SCOTUS that: " Corporations are people"!?
Also, Romney is the one who also admitted that he would of NOT done ANYTHING about bailing out ANYONE? When the economy tanked !? NO bailout for Detroit, the housing crises, NO ONE? "let the market do what it needs to do, and let the chips fall where they may"?
Not only that, but WHAT Makes ANYONE think Romney can be trusted on ANYTHING -- given how he -- sooner or later -- flip-flops on just about everything ! Haven't we already had enough of *BAIT AND SWITCH* from the GOP ! THEY CARE ONLY FOR THEMSELVES AND THE *1%* I could vote for a GOP candidate -- *IF* there were one WORTH voting for !
BUT after what they did after the mid-terms last yr -- with their PROMISE to be ALL ABOUT JOBS FROM DAY ONE -- and then NOTHING but social issue after social issue after social issue after they won? They have CLEARLY SHOWN they CANT BE TRUSTED to do ANYTHING for ANYONE *NOT* of the *1%*!
I have voted in every campaign since '74, and I have NEVER seen either party be so SELF-SERVING as this one!
Lastly, ALL GOP members taking the oath-of-office in 2013 (should any of them actually win) given what they have done and how far to the right they have taken the party, will in addition also be *REQUIRED* to recite a NEW pledge of allegience !
IT reads as follows:
"I pledge allegience to Grover Norquist, and to the corporations for which he stands. One nation, under God, totally divisible by rich and poor, with liberty and justice for those that can afford it ! "
"NOTHING but social issue after social issue after social issue after they (Repubs) won?"
I have to remind you that it's liberal media outlets like Msnbc who keep the 100's of articles going about Herman Cain's infidelities, Gingrich's cheating on wives, Romney's religion, Palin's family members, etc.
So, who's been harping on "NOTHING but social issue after social issue after social issue after they won? ???????
BTW, the Republican bills are sitting on Reid's desk and he wont bring them up for a vote. He's a stonewaller.
Those bills are nothing but a bunch of right wing s***, leona. When will you conservatwits learn that in order to get things done you have to GIVE A LITTLE. I mean, if you hadn't screwed up the debt deal with your no-taxes pledge to that fool Norquist we might have been in a better place right now. But no, you all sabotaged it. I'm glad the GOP is polarized right now. I'm glad that Obama has gotten tired of compromising and is going all out against the GOP. This is the guy I voted for. This is the guy I WILL vote for. And this is the guy who will trample the GOP and lead America to prosperity.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
P.S. Leona, I think it's time America gets a shot of some socialism. We need more oversight over the economy, a more progressive tax system, a better government, and some level-headed people in Congress. And I don't find a trace of that in ANY Republican, not I should be surprised. May God have mercy on you stupid Repugs, 'cause Obama and the American people won't!!!!!! Can't wait till 2012...
GOP/TEA PARTY/CONSERVATISM EXTINCT 2012
Marxist/Socialism is dead, it's validity died when the USSR died, it's tombstone was erected by the government of China when they ditched it for capitalism. There are a few marxist/socialist states left on the planet like North Korea and Venezuela, Cuba is beginning to shed it's socialism for capitalism....
I agree with a lot of what you want, but Democrats given their current political stances wont get us there, neither will the establishment republicans.
The only one that has a plan to bring us the change we NEED is Ron Paul! WE as Americans NEED a shot of good old American LIBERTY!
Not more government oppression and favoritism.
What is so bad about an active federal government? For forty years we've undergone so-called "free-market capitalism" and instead of a lasting era of prosperity we got a boatload of debt, countries beating us, and a sluggish economy. And I'm not talking about a socialistic government. I'm talking about a government that adopts A FEW socialistic premises. That's it. Calm down, conservatives. I'm not talking about leading a revolution similar to the one in Russia back in 1917. Then again, if America tumbles thanks to the idiotic conservatives in Congress, I don't think a revolution would be bad. Maybe THEN the GOP will realize that the American people won't put up their BS.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Freshieee: "What is so bad about an active federal government?"
ONE word.................GREECE.
That was an OVER-active government, Leona. Get your facts straight. The Greeks squandered their money on domestic projects, while we squandered our money on foreign adventures. Besides, remember the active U.S. government of the 1990s? The economy was good then, and we had a surplus. Even though that was caused by the tech boom, imagine what would have happened had we stuck to domestic investment instead of wasting money on foreign adventures and stupid tax cuts that ruined our fiscal house. Washington has a SPENDING/REVENUE problem. Get that through your brains if you want to be taken seriously. And what about the disadvantages of an inactive federal government.
ONE word................1970s-2008 AMERICA.
Why are we talking about Romney? He is like in third place? Gonna do a big media push on Bachmann too? How about the rent is too damn high guy? Anything possible to avoid mentioning Ron Pauls name in the media?
Republicans---Security The only group in Washington standing between my wealth and the next liberal politician...
^ The Economic meltdown cured most Americans of that delusion.
Another idiotic economic "plan" from another republican pinhead. First of all, Romney, like most of the repubs, seem to equate "middle class" with $200K a year earners. That may be the extreme top end of middle class; however, "middle class" to me means more in the area of $40K to $50K a year. That may be considered more "lower middle class", but that's the part of the middle class that needs help the most - not the upper end of high earners. So thanks alot for your offer to eliminate capital gains taxes for me, Mitt - which leaves the burning question: "WHAT capital gains?? To have capital gaines taxes, you have to have capital gains - most of us are struggling to pay our mortgages or rent & our utilities & put food on the table. I'm also glad you feel that the "very poor" (the VERY poor) are taken care of, what with their "safety net" & all. I guess all those statistics about hungry American children are just an urban legend - the repubs have even taken away a large part of free breakfast & lunches for these children (including that nutritious "vegetable" - ketchup!). Mitt, you're either another heartless bastard or a total moron; either way, you're totally out of touch with the way things really are in this country - you don't have a clue.
Linda: "Mitt, you're either another heartless bastard or a total moron; either way, you're totally out of touch with the way things really are in this country"
Linda,
I suppose Mitt is more in touch with the 53% who PAY TAXES and you're focusing on the 47% who pay NO TAXES.
It's a different perspective, but we are all Americans.
Try seeing things from the other side, sometime.
It may help decrease the vitriol.
Here's a tax cut for you.
OK, you gotta die of something right. I think that was a Marlboro ad. Well let's be Patriotic about it. Its obvious that most of us are not going to join the Military and fight the Terrorists but we can put some skin in the game (actually your skin is already in the game but you are too dumb to know it), get the Government out of some of OUR LIFE, Reduce Taxes by getting rid of the TSA and HomeLand Security and Repeal the Patriot Act just by doing one little thing. LET THE DAMN TERRORIST ALONE. As far as I can tell we have spent TRILLIONS of DOLLARS trying to get rid of these guys and the odds of being killed are still 1 in 5,000,000,000 against you. Some @!$%# is gonna get ya. Call him a Terrorist, call him an Enemy, call him your NEIGHBOR, call him or her anything you want but the fact is, you, nor the Government nor GOD can STOP HIM. SO WHY KEEP PAYING FOR IT.
Sorry, no slime ball Republicans need apply.
Obama 2012
The Bush Tax Cuts were meant to be temporary. They were wrong for America when they were passed and they are worse now.
sounds like you're one of those 47% who pay NO TAXES.
We ALL pay taxes, dimwit...
Maybe no federal INCOME TAX, but fedreal FICA ,state, county, city too.
Get a grip!
No candidate should be permitted to set forth a "tax plan" without detailed specifics, including scenarios of how they would affect taxpayers of different incomes and family situations (single, married, single w/children, married w/children, etc...). Anyone who claims that they have a better tax plan should be ignored by the press and the public if they don't present these details.
"Romulian Romney" is no economic friend of the Middle Class, the Working Poor, the elderly, and the disabled. Look at his voting record, and his recent "flip-flopping" on the economic issues. The "Romulian" has no clue of what the Middle Class is suffering through right now. His Big CEO friends will never support any tax cut for the Middle Class. His economic loyalty is to the Koch Brothers, large Wall Street Bankers/Investors, and large Oil Corporations. "Romulian Romney" is for even larger Corporate loop holes, and even larger Tax Payer Oil Subsidies. The tax bracket for the top 1% will go down even further, and will not be raised. The recent debate on the Pay Roll Tax Cut is a classic example of how the GOP Lobbyists will never pass it. Only if the GOP Lobbyists can cut Government Jobs at a crippling rate? Will they ever pass this Tax Cut. "Bonehead Boehner" is the GOP "Myth Maker." Yes America! Old "Bonehead Boehner" loves to make up many myths, and he will even fake crying as he spews them. Sick of listening to the GOP Lobbyists yet America??? I hope so!
Folks on this blog who think Mittens understands the middle class are A: also rich and don't understand the middle class or B: middle class but continually vote against their own interests as they do not know any better and would rather wear blinders because it's just easier to do that.